walkingeagles

12/28/2011 09:19:15 AM

The nonsense that JWs throw up abt Christmas and birthdays is a reflection of how mixed up they are. The purpose of Christmas is to celebrate the fact that Jesus came among us. What date we celebrate that does not matter. The same with birthdays. We celebrate our lives and those who we love and because we celebration the date they were born does not in anyway take away from God's law. There are a lot of things in this life that we do that are not in the Bible. I am surprised that the JWs haven't changed the Bible again to suit them in this matter.

mvjimo

12/27/2011 04:59:16 PM

Well. If the monk was off by a couple of years, he could easily be off by a few months as well. While I have heard of historical evidence for the census, I have not heard any evidence about what time of year it was conducted. This would be another reason for a different time of year: if they wanted an accurate census, they would want warm weather to induce compliance. But in an agrarian society, they wouldn't want sowing or harvesting season. So March or April would be reasonable for a census, in my humble opinion.

DameZara

12/27/2011 09:23:57 AM

@suzybelle1954. Awesomely said! My compliments on saying the truth and nothing but the holy truth. God Bless!

suzybelle1954

12/04/2011 07:04:28 PM

Jesus was born in the fall - Oct/Nov. Nowhere in scripture do we see God's people celebrating birthdays-Jesus included. Jews of ancient times and in thr first century did NOT celebrate birthdays because this was a pagan celebration based on spiritism (making wishes etc) Nowhere in the NT do we see the early Christians - who actually knew Jesus - celebrate his birth. They didn't even know exactly when it was and the Bible does not say. Jesus stated that in order for our worship to be acceptable to God it must be based on"spirit and truth" John 4:24. Is Christmas based on truth? Jesus wasn't born on December 24th. Santa Claus is NOT real. Many traditionals beliefs of C hristmas as myth and spiritistic in nature. Tree worship was practiced by pagans for centuries and is something that goes against Bible teachings. If we want to worship God accepably we need to look into the Bible and base our beliefs and worship on TRUTH - not fiction, untruth, and myths.

logical_thinker

12/21/2008 03:13:54 PM

Well, personally, I think it is all a bunch of crap. I am, as my screen name states, a logical thinker. I believe that there is some supernatural force out there that may "control" us, however, nothing that was ever written. Religion and Gods (for those of who have a god, but claim that you are not religious, which decapitated the oxy and left the moron standing) was a form of controling mass populations of people, because men do not fear a man. As far as the bible, I would say it has been amended a few times, please read up on King James and his ill practices (which his version of the bible is now the most popular). Which in fact, those were the real Gods, that is the reason for religion as we know it, so that a King would rule because the mindless idiots in general population feared the one who was "appointed and protected by god". I actually stumbled upon this site in search for an answer that I could physically show her, since she is "religious" and I'm not and she hate when I point out that she is once again celebrating another pagan holiday (Christmas, Easter, etc) and that needs to get off my back for me not celebrating this materialistic festival for idiots making themselves broker and the fascist corporations, that have been screwing us in this time of economical mayhem, richer. Thanks...

HMSRelentless

12/17/2008 06:33:24 PM

Jesus was born in the Spring....as modern theologists agree. X-Mas is in December thanks to the Romans. The cult of Mithra and Isis....look them up. They show the long standing pre-christian religions of Rome that man becomes God and is resurrected and as for isis she is sanother virgin mother. All this was incorporated by the Roman church as it allowed a direct transition from yhe "pagan" beliefs to have the same myth basis for Christianity and would be immediatel an easy transition.

AngelsWatchU

12/11/2008 05:33:05 AM

Actually, it does'nt matter when Christ was born. All that matters is that he was born. He came, he lived and he died for our sins. Whether born in April , May, September or December your salvation is not dependent on birthdates but on the fact that you beive he was born period. Be Blessed

reaper1

09/23/2006 10:17:26 AM

I just joined BeliefNet and started reading the various discussion threads to get an idea of what was "out there." I am doing this beause I am attempting to assemble a book that shows how the Bible actually interprets itself because it was written by one source through many different scribes. I know that isn't a new thought but I've observed that many people love to take bits and pieces of information and draw conclusions to support preconceived notions or their own religious traditions. I started writing this at the request of many people who are "upset" about the "Left Behind" series, the rapture beliefs and the DaVinci Code (all untrue). Of course, everyone has a point of view and I'm fine with that. All the "arguments" I have read so far within this site only confirm this. I don't know whether I'll ever finish the work I've started but I am more than willing to share it with whoever is interested.

tiscpa

06/14/2006 12:15:46 AM

The funny thing about the belief of the trinity is that there's actually four. The trinity is actually another one of the false teachings that the bible mentions about.

Henry7

06/13/2006 05:45:10 PM

Jesus was not born on Yule Dec 25th. It is a Pagan festival that the early Christians wanted to end. They could not, because the masses in Europe were solidly Pagan, so they grafted the Yule festival to their new religion. When people say "Keep Christ in Christmas" they are wrong historically.

MomforLife

12/20/2005 06:16:42 AM

I basically agree with Katja (What a pretty name!). However, recent astronomers and scholars believe that Jesus was more than likely born at the end of April. Records of the positions of the stars, as well as weather reports support this. I think The Church did what it had to do to bring more people to Christ, and that's not necessarily a bad thing! They actually related to the common people! That's rare for them! However, Katja is correct! The celebration of our Lord Jesus Christ's birth is the main thing! Have a blessed holiday season! Selah

Godfactor

06/18/2005 02:51:27 PM

I don't believe that Jesus was born in winter. There is a great documentary (The True Story of Jesus)which suggests that our calandar is off by 6 years making the millenium in 2006. It also asserts that, in ancient times in the region, (if I remember correctly)Jupiter which when it was in the constellation of Leo was a sign that a King was being born. Harrod would certainly been notified of the "sign" thus killing the newborn males. The wise men (an unknown number and not necessarily three) would have also known of the sign. Jupiter was at zenith at midnight in the constellation of Leo in the area of Israel and Palestine.

Katja144

08/10/2002 02:12:06 AM

Who cares exactly when he was born? We don't celebrate all of the presidents' birthdays on the exact date either, but no one is complaining. The important part is the celebration.

truthshines

12/27/2001 08:55:27 PM

“Any record of the date of birth of Yeshua Ben Nazareth (later known as Jesus Christ) has been lost. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to indicate that Yeshua was born in the fall, but this seems to have been unknown to early Christians.” www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm How the Church Selected December 25 “The actual birthday of Jesus was forgotten by the early Christian movement. Various groups celebrated his birth on JAN-6, APR-21 and MAY-1. By the 4th century, the church selected the approximate time of the winter solstice as the date to recognize Jesus' birth. They picked up this date from Pagan sources.” www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_dir.htm#month Revautumnwolf, the excerpts I gave were about WHEN Jesus could have been born and why if it is not December 25, how December 25 was selected as the time to celebrate. It was not about IF Jesus existed which is what you are talking about.

tedsmith

12/27/2001 09:28:27 AM

For the current "scholarly" debate concerning Jesus historical existance you will have to see: http://infoweb.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html It's ironic that the scholars who have shown us how to read the NT critically, but still adhere to the notion that Jesus did in fact exist, now have to confront more recent thinking and evidence that He didn't!

revautumnwolf

12/27/2001 12:59:04 AM

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, TS. Otherwise, you have missed the mark. THEN perhaps you may attack the Christ as well, but first, the log in your eye...burn it or lathe it into table legs so you will have something to stand on.

revautumnwolf

12/27/2001 12:53:44 AM

I suggest to anyone to read The Hidden Gospel by Neil Douglas Klotz, an Aramaic scholar who examines the ministry of Isa in light of Aramaic texts of the Gospels, including some of those found at Nag Hammadi, as well as the "Canonical" Gospels. We find a very different Jesus, indeed, when we try to hear Him in His native tongue. Jesus spoke Aramaic--not Greek, Hebrew or Elizabethan English. Visit Douglas-Klotz at www.abwoon.com Douglas-Klotz's book has gone far to help me understand a Jesus that makes sense to me. The word in Aramaic, that Isa would have used in reference to what we now call "God" in English ('god' derived from a germanic word meaning 'good') The word Jesus would have used was 'Alaha', from the same roots as Elohim and Allah, and meaning a "Self Existent ONE"...Sounds like TAO to me.... But who am I?

revautumnwolf

12/27/2001 12:51:18 AM

At this point there is NO serious debate in academia over whether or not Isa/Jesus/Yeshua existed. There are plenty of questions surrounding his life and much enigmatic literature from many sources, but his existence is an accepted FACT. I am rather dissappointed in you , TS, after having made so many valid points regarding the influences of other extant practices and mythologies during the first several centuries ce and the few several bce that were so pivotal.

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:20:07 PM

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25. Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth." www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_dir.htm#month

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:20:00 PM

Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:19:41 PM

Egyptian Pagan Religion: Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included: 23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..." Many parables attributed to Jesus. Worship of Osiris was established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE.

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:19:21 PM

Some examples are: Roman Pagan Religion: Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, "as the solar deity for the new season." 5 His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE. Greek Pagan Religion: Dionysus is another savior-god. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:18:20 PM

"How the Church Selected December 25 The actual birthday of Jesus was forgotten by the early Christian movement. Various groups celebrated his birth on JAN-6, APR-21 and MAY-1. By the 4th century, the church selected the approximate time of the winter solstice as the date to recognize Jesus' birth. They picked up this date from Pagan sources. The winter solstice occurs about DEC-21 each year. It is the day of the year when the night is longest and the daytime shortest. It was, and is, the traditional date for followers of many different Pagan religions to celebrate the rebirth of the sun. Following the solstice, each succeeding day has slightly more sunlight than the previous day. It was seen as a promise that warmth would return once more to the earth. Numerous pre-Christian Pagan religions honored their gods' birth or rebirth on or about that day. Their deities were typically called: Son of Man, Light of the World, Sun of Righteousness, Bridegroom, and Savior.

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:00:53 PM

Many symbols and practices associated with Christmas are of Pagan origin: holly, ivy, mistletoe, yule log, the giving of gifts, decorated evergreen tree, magical reindeer, etc. Polydor Virgil, an early British Christian, said "Dancing, masques, mummeries, stageplays, and other such Christmas disorders now in use with Christians, were derived from these Roman Saturnalian and Bacchanalian festivals; which should cause all pious Christians eternally to abominate them." In Massachusetts, Puritans unsuccessfully tried to ban Christmas entirely during the 17th century, because of its heathenism. The English Parliament abolished Christmas in 1647. Some contemporary Christian faith groups do not celebrate Christmas. Included among these was the Worldwide Church of God (before its recent conversion to Evangelical Christianity) and the Jehovah's Witnesses." www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm

truthshines

12/26/2001 07:00:44 PM

"Any record of the date of birth of Yeshua Ben Nazareth (later known as Jesus Christ) has been lost. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to indicate that Yeshua was born in the fall, but this seems to have been unknown to early Christians. By the beginning of the 4th century CE, there was intense interest in choosing a day to celebrate Yeshua's birthday. The western church leaders selected DEC-25 because this was already the date recognized throughout the Roman Empire as the birthday of various Pagan gods. 1,2 Since there was no central Christian authority at the time, it took centuries before the tradition was universally accepted: Eastern churches began to celebrate Christmas after 375 CE. The church in Jerusalem started in the 7th century. Ireland started in the 5th century Austria, England and Switzerland in the 8th Slavic lands in the 9th and 10th centuries. 3

tedsmith

12/26/2001 06:25:22 PM

We should all understand what the Roman philosopher Seneca said: "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful." I can't say it any clearer or better!

tedsmith

12/26/2001 06:19:24 PM

The Magi story in Matthew is pure poetry. Suggesting a supernatural event took place in order to make Matthew's narrative "true" is unworthy of anyone who claims to be a Bible expert. There is much more to be gained from religious literature by placing it properly in its context and on the timeline from cave paintings to The Lord of the Rings. And frankly, when seen in its proper context, most religious literature is of middling quality compared to the great works of human literature such as Paradise Lost, A Thousand and One Nights, The Iliad, Moby Dick, Macbeth, etc.

tedsmith

12/26/2001 06:19:12 PM

Some people just don't get it. My argument is that all major written works, most especially religious ones, have a human provenance. They are, therefore, literature and should be understood and treated as such. To argue that Psalms (Hebrew poetry) is the "word of God" and Milton's Paradise Lost (English poetry) is not is indefensible and demonstrates an intellectual laziness. It's a lot harder to get through Paradise Lost than the Psalms. Using Revelation as a guide to the future or past is just as error prone (silly actually) as using Dante's Inferno or the prophecies of Nostradamus.

bezara

12/26/2001 03:06:51 PM

jesus was not born from a virgin! isaiah is nnot referring to jesus but a a happening at that time with king ahaz read isaiah chapter 7 it does say almah which means young women not betulah which means virgin

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:18:26 PM

Oops! It's on page 17. Sorry

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:17:28 PM

REFERENCE: Here's the reference for my Brezinski quote (see other post) on the utter FAILURE of pure rationalism: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1993), p. 26 Brzezinski was the former National Security Advisor for President Jimmy Carter.

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:12:54 PM

[ON RATIONALISM (ALSO, SEE PREVIOUS POSTS THAT ADDRESS THE HISTORICAL JESUS] In Zbigniew Brezinski's book, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century, he stated that the basic concepts of pure rationalism, devoid of a spiritual base, led to what he called the "Totalitarian metamyth." He stated that during the 20th century alone, a whopping 175,000,000 human begins where WHIPED OUT (killed) as a result of rationalist ideas that had their birth (in part) during the French Revolution (but really before). So this garbage that tedsmith is taking about our "missing out" on what he perceives as the benefits of pure rationalism is a load of crap to the extreme.

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:12:41 PM

[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST (SEE ABOVE] There probably does not exist ONE century in human history where ANY religion was responsible for the deaths of 175,000,000 human beings in ONE CENTURY. Give us a break, ted. To quote Brzezinski: "Thus, during the twentieth century, no less than 167,000,000 lives--and quite probably in excess of 175,000,000--were deliberately extinguished through POLITICALLY [my emphasis] motivated carnage." Again [read his book]. He attributes these deaths to RATIONALIST philosophies that, over time, led to political ideas about *shaping* human destiny without the need of a spiritual base. I'll take Islam any day. [SEE NEXT POST]

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:04:28 PM

As I suspected, tedsmith totally ignored the long list of documents that I submitted, and that have been reproduced in the book, Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion? That is because he is not familiar with them, as he does not read the languages those documents are produced in [most likely]. The Tariks of Kashmir are HISTORIES, not religious books. And the record Jesus' arrival and life in Kashmir. Naturally, I will not agree with your conclusion that the Qur'an has contradicted itself concerning the creation. But **ONLY** for the sake of argument, let us suppose that it did. This does not negate the historical Jesus. Jesus is mentioned in many, many documents [some yet to be translated], in Persia, Afghanistan, India, etc. He is mentioned in the Bible. He is mentioned in the Qur'an. CONTINUED NEXT POST

tmaster1

12/26/2001 12:04:06 PM

[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST--SEE **ABOVE** THIS POST] You may eliminate the Bible and Qur'an, if you wish. But then there are AT LEAST 13 other documents, unrelated to either the Bible or the Qur'an. The issue was **the historical Jesus,** and whether or not he existed. When you're involved in detective work, you **do not** automatically dismiss a piece of possible evidence just because it appears in the book of as religion you dislike. What you do is **continue** to search elsewhere to uncover evidence. It is only after that that you can draw conclusions. Qur'an is ONE book. Bible is ONE book. They are not the only ones, though. The fact that Jesus appears in many books **lends weight** to the belief that he existed as a real historical individual, not just the work of myth.

tedsmith

12/26/2001 10:00:00 AM

My point is that religious literature, when regarded as "God's word" or inerrant, infallible, a proof text, etc. gives rise to irrational and unjust acts, and in praiseworthy acts too, of course. However, we have passed through the Enlightenment and a significant number of us are able to properly assess these texts in their historical and cultural settings. And, those who have not or cannot let go of an irrational view of this literature for their spiritual comfort are missing out on the much deeper and more rational understanding that secular humanists are now experiencing.

tedsmith

12/26/2001 09:59:46 AM

The language used in the Qur'an is archaic and, like the bible, results in the need to have someone provide the "proper" interpretation. Even if the math concerning creation can be explained away, what are we supposed to make of "seven firmaments"? eg. This need for interpretation is why Mr. Witherington's "answer" is not definitive. It's his "take" on the text. Bishop Spong & I have another take on it. And several here will have their take on it. It's even worse for the Qur'an as we now see since 9/11. There are as many interpretations of the Qur'anic verses as their are self-styled Mullahs.

a78692

12/25/2001 11:21:10 PM

TedSmith, in one of his posts has objected that in most of the places the Qur'an states that God created the heavens and the earth in six days (for example: 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59) while in 41: 9 - 12, a little more detail of the number of days involved in this creation is given. In this verse, God has separately mentioned the number of days it took to create the earth and the number it took to create the heavens. Mr. Katz says that if we add up these numbers, they sum up to eight, rather than six, which obviously is a contradiction in the statements of the Qur'an. In the article that follows, I shall try to briefly present the correct view about the stated apparent contradiction in the Qur'an. http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/articles.jsp?point=1&id=76

jerrylee

12/25/2001 11:02:42 PM

Just finished watching History Channel show on Christmas where one scientist made a good case for the birth in 3 BCE based on astronomical data from that time. Who knows. Also, it seems pretty common knowledge that the December 25th date was assigned to Jesus birth to coincide with the savior god Mithra's birth reportedly on the same date (of course, many Christian traditions are believed to come from rites associated with Mithra). Since neither Mathew or Luke (or James, for that matter, in his infancy narrative), all near contemporaries of Jesus, can their stories straight, how can we?

terryntx

12/25/2001 10:52:02 PM

ts, if according to you Jesus is a fictional character - why would you even spend so much time trying to deny Him...? I guess that always amazes me. Why atheists or agnostics spend so much time trying to get rid of the Christian religion - if it's just fiction, why would you even care? If you are WRONG - at the end of your life, it will be very SAD.

my_ring_now

12/25/2001 10:16:44 PM

Does it matter, the exact day when Jesus was born? Hardly. The most important fact is that He did come, was born of a virgin by a miracle, lived, ministered, died, and rose again. Like it says in the Bible: And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." And may I remind you, folks. You can avoid and deny the Truth all your sinful little heart desires, but Truth is always there, and you cannot escape it. There is coming quickly now a Judgment, and what will you have to say then? On that day, Jesus will not be the loving and merciful God you think Him to be. He will be a righteous Judge, and will give to all the just reward of their deeds from life on earth. Consider yourselves warned.

eostar

12/25/2001 10:14:18 PM

Part 2 Religion is only the desire and the effort to understand and know this Supreme Being(s), that we by nature already know exist. Therefore, if there is the evidence, and by this evidence the proof, of a Supreme Being(s), isn't it possible that there are inspired writings that are set apart from other writings? Can there be any reasonable doubt found in what tedsmith and others like him are saying? They are just denying what they innately know to be true. eostar

eostar

12/25/2001 10:08:31 PM

Part 1 I believe that everyone born has faith inside of them. If they want to admit it, or not, the knowledge of the existence of God is there. We might try to disprove it, explain it away, or put it aside. But it is there. As far back as history began being recorded, we can find evidence of the desire to worship a god/dess, and even many gods. This is something that is in our very nature. No matter how anyone has ever tried to deny this, it is evidently a fact. So how is it that this thing that is in us, this desire to acknowledge a supreme being or faith, is actually not a natural born trait. To deny God exist, as TS and so many others try to do,is unproductive and counter-productive. It is also very unrealistic. eostar

coyotezee

12/25/2001 08:22:35 PM

The response about revisions to the Bible perhaps considers only revisions during the common era. But according to Richard Elliott Friedman, in "Who Wrote the Bible?", the first five books of the Bible had three different authors, each writing about the same events at a different time and with a different political and religious agenda. A fourth writer combined all the accounts, leaving us with the contradictory, but fascinating, account of early Hebrew history.

stripey

12/25/2001 11:59:51 AM

From the posts I can see this is more or less the tedsmith posting site, but on the offchance that others are allowed to type opinions, I shall venture to say that there is a vast chasm of difference between Harry Potter and the synoptic Gospels. Of course, in this day and age, it's rare for people of ts's ilk to believe in much of anything, so I'm sure for him, Harry is as deep as he can get. The Bible, or as ts refers to it "religious literature," was written by many different people over a long period of time. From the very earliest tones of equality in Genesis to the dire warnings of what will befall ts and others like him in Revelations, there is quite a bit of proof throughout the entire work. Merry CHRISTmas.

tedsmith

12/25/2001 09:36:15 AM

If this century (and Beliefnet) accomplishes nothing else, I trust it will finally lay to rest the notion that religious literature is anything more than just that - religious literature. It cannot and should not be referenced as a proof text for anything. If it supports justice, equality, intellectual freedom, etc. then fine, otherwise it's to be viewed & treated the same way as we view The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Macbeth, Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, etc.

tedsmith

12/25/2001 09:35:53 AM

But then you have: "Quran-41:9 : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ? Quran- 41:10: He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS… Quran-41:12: So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and … " Not very enlightening. And how does one deal with "seven firmaments" in the 21st century?

tedsmith

12/25/2001 09:35:36 AM

The Holy Qur'an derives it's story of Jesus' birth from the traditions available at the time it was written. It adds nothing to whether or not there actually was a birth. In that sense it only adds to the deception that the gospel writers advanced. Further, the Qur'an is quite unreliable as a proof text for anything. Eg. "Quran-7:54: Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days"

tmaster1

12/25/2001 09:08:45 AM

Regarding tedsmith's belief that Jesus was a man-created, fictional character, used later by a cabal ["the powers that be"], that view might be considered correct *if* no non-Gospel documents could be found that substantiate the existence of the historical Jesus. But there are other documents: The Bhavishya Mahapurana (Sanskrit), Ikmal-ud-Din, The Buddhist book called the Book of Balauhar and Budasaf, the Tarikh-i-Kabir-i-Kashmir (Persian), the Grugtha Thams Chand (Tibetan), the Wajees-ut-Tawarikh, the Bagh-i-Sulaiman, The Negaris-i-Tan-i-Kashmir, the Ain-ul-Hayat. Of course, he is also mentioned in the Muslim religious book, the Qur'an. All the above books are *non-Christian* books. Read about them in: Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion? It's now available through Amazon.com

tmaster1

12/25/2001 09:01:03 AM

[POST #2: CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST] The last verse states that the birth of Jesus took place at a time when fresh dates are found on palm trees in Judaea. That season is in the months of August-September. The Bible (Luke) says: "'And there were shepherds in teh same country [Judaea] abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flocks" The Shepherds were out with their sheep, and that would not have been in the winter of Judaea, when the night temperature is so low in the hill country that snow is not uncommon. [END OF POSTS ON THE BIRTH OF JESUS]

tmaster1

12/25/2001 08:55:13 AM

The Holy Qur'an agrees with the Bible that Jesus was born at a warmer time, most likely in the months of August or September, not December. [this may take a couple of posts, but it is interesting]. Concerning Maryam (Mary), the mother of Jesus, The Holy Qur'an says: "She said, 'How can I have a son when no man hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?' "The angel said, 'Thus it shall be.' But says the Lord, 'It is easy for Me; and We shall do so that We may make him a Sign unto men, and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing decreed.' "So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place. "And the pains of child-birth drove her unto the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, 'Oh, would that I had died before this and had become a thing quite forgotten!' "Then the angel called her from beneath her, saying, 'Grieve not. Thy Lord has placed a rivulet before thee; "'And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will drop upon thee fresh ripe dates." [SEE NEXT POST]

tedsmith

12/24/2001 10:12:26 PM

As you examine the NT and non-biblical records more carefully you begin to sense that the evidence for a historical Jesus is extremely tenuous. It seems more likely that Paul, the Gospel writers and others created a Christian myth in line with other Hellenistic myths of the time & eventually a fully developed, but fictional Jesus emerged in the second century. From that point on the powers that be determined that he was to be regarded as real and that a particular view of him was to be accepted - the Pauline view vs the Gnostic view, eg.

tedsmith

12/24/2001 10:12:14 PM

These answers? assume that we can take what is written in the NT, particularly the gospels, at something near to face value. The fact is we can't. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke are contradictory or at least different. Discussing Jesus' birth and date of birth is akin to discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin. You can have such a discussion but you can't associate any facts to these fictions.